Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Salammal on 7 January, 2021
CMA(MD)No.252 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 07.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD)No.252 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
The Divisional Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Division – III,
Ranithottam,
Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil. .. Appellant
vs.
1.Salammal
2.Sugumaran
3.Vijayan
(2nd & 3rd respondents given up since the
Driver & Conductor of the Appellant/
Transport Corporation)
...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and award made in MCOP No.91
of 2003 dated 30.12.2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court, Nagercoil.
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.252 of 2010
For Appellant : Mr.K.Gokul
For Respondents : Mr.A.Balamohan (for R1)
R2 and R3 - given up
JUDGMENT
The Transport Corporation has come up with this appeal
challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Nagercoil, passed in MCOP No.91 of 2003 dated
30.12.2005.
2.This a case of injury. According to the claimant, on 07.04.2002,
she travelled in a bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation
bearing registration No.TN-74-M-0289 from Nithiraivilai to Marthandam
and when the bus stopped Gandhi ground bus stop, she was getting down
from the bus, however, before she got down, the conductor whistled and
the vehicle was moved in a rash and negligent manner and hence, she fell
down and sustained grievous injuries on her head and other parts of her
body. Immediately, she was taken to Manchu Hospital, where she took
treatment as inpatient from 07.04.2002 to 12.04.2002 and thereafter, she
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.252 of 2010
took treatment at Susrushah Hospital at Nagercoil as inpatient from
27.04.2002 to 02.05.2002. According to her, a major operation was also
conducted on her head. She sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, but
the Tribunal has awarded Rs.65,100/-.
3.The appellant herein resisted the claim petition contending that
the claimant attempted to get down from the running bus, thereby, she
sustained injuries and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation
to the claimant.
4.In order to prove the negligent, the claimant examined herself as
P.W.1 and she has narrated the incident as stated in the claim petition.
She has produced Ex.P.1, First Information Report, Ex.P.2 Accident
Register and Ex.P.3 Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, Ex.P.4 Rough
Sketch and Ex.P.5 Observation Mahazar. Though the appellant examined
the driver and conductor of the bus, the Tribunal choose to accept the
evidence of the claimant and held that the driver of the bus was
responsible for the accident.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.252 of 2010
5.P.W.1 has further deposed that in the accident, she suffered injury
in the head and she took treatment at Manchu Hospital and Susrushah
Hospital. Ex.P.2 is the accident register and Exs.P.6 to P.12 are the
medical bills and case sheet. Based on the above evidence, the Tribunal
has awarded Rs.5000/- towards loss of income; Rs.3,000/- towards loss
of income; Rs.2,000/- towards transportation; Rs.3,000/- for extra
nourishment; Rs.100/- for damage of articles; Rs.37,000/- towards
medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; and Rs.
10,000/- towards loss of earning capacity In total, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.65,100/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Aggrieved over the Judgment and award, the present appeal has been
filed.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
7.Though the appellant has contended that the claimant is the
responsible for the accident, a perusal of the Judgment of the Tribunal
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.252 of 2010
would show that the Tribunal, after considering the First Information
Report (Ex.P.1), Accident Register (Ex.P.2), Motor Vehicles Inspector's
Report (Ex.P.3), rough sketch (Ex.P.4) and observation Mahazer (Ex.P.5),
held that the driver and conductor of the bus are the responsible for the
accident. So, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver and conductor of
the bus were responsible for the accident does not warrant any
interference by this Court and hence, it is confirmed.
8.Though the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company
has contended that the award is on the higher side and it requires
reduction, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has awarded a just
and reasonable compensation. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9.In that view, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, as
devoid of merits. Since the appeal is dismissed, the appellant/Transport
Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued
interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.252 of 2010
such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount,
less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate
interest and costs. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
07.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court,
Nagercoil.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.252 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.252 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
07.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
